SILC report 2010 final

8/2/2019 SILC report 2010 final

1/98

An Phromh-Oifig StaidrimhCentral Statistics Office

Published by the Stationery Office, Dublin, Ireland.

Copies can be obtained from the:

Central Statistics Office, Information Section, Skehard Road, Cork,

Government Publications Sales Office, Sun Alliance House,Molesworth Street, Dublin 2.

For more information contactMarion McCann on 021 453 5611, Pamela Lafferty on 021 453 5268,

Anne McGrath on 021 453 5487 or Caroline Barrett on 021 453 5485

March 2012


2/98

Government of Ireland 2012

Material compiled and presented by theCentral Statistics Office.

Reproduction is authorised, except for commercialpurposes, provided the source is acknowledged.

ISSN 1649-6388


3/98

Page

Introduction and summary of results 5

Chapter 1 Income 9

Chapter 2 At risk of poverty rate 25

Chapter 3 Deprivation 41

Chapter 4 Consistent poverty rate 61

Chapter 5 EU comparison and indicators 71

Appendix 1 Sample size 81

Appendix 2 Background notes 87

3

SILC 2010

Table of contents


4/98


5/98

Summary of main results

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Income

Equivalised disposable income

(per individual) 21,229 23,610 24,380 23,326 22,168

At risk of poverty threshold

(60% of median income) 10,566 11,890 12, 455 12,064 10,831

Poverty & deprivation rates % % % % %

At risk of poverty rate 17.0 16.5 14.4 14.1 15.8

Deprivation rate1

13.8 11.8 13.8 17.1 22.5

Consistent poverty rate 6.5 5.1 4.2 5.5 6.21

Experienced two or more types of enforced deprivation

The Survey on Income and Living Conditions (SILC) in Ireland is a household survey covering a broad

range of issues in relation to income and living conditions. It is the official source of data on household and

individual income and also provides a number of key national poverty indicators, such as the at risk of

poverty rate, the consistent poverty rate and rates of enforced deprivation. SILC was conducted by the

Central Statistics Office (CSO) for the first time in 2003 under EU legislation (Council regulation No.

1177/2003) and is currently being conducted on an annual basis. The survey is also carried out in other EUmember states allowing comparable statistics to be compiled on a pan-European basis.

Preliminary results for SILC 2010 were published by CSO in November 2011. This final detailed

publication contains further tables and analysis of 2010 SILC data.

A summary of the key results of the 2010 survey along with comparative information for previous years is

presented below:

5

SILC 2010

Introduction andsummary of results


6/98

New features of the 2010 SILC publication

At risk of poverty rates for 2007 2010 anchored in 2004 2007.

Analysis of deprivation rates for those NOT at risk of poverty by key indicators.

Inclusion of the EU2020 target indicators.

The separation of occupational pensions from old age related payments in Chapter 1.

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Rate%Figure 1 Poverty and deprivation ratesby year

At risk of pove rty rate

Deprivation rate for individuals at risk of poverty

Deprivation rate for individuals NOTat risk of poverty

Consistent PovertyRate

The analysis in this report is divided into five separate chapters, namely:

u Chapter 1: Income

u Chapter 2: At risk of poverty rate

u Chapter 3: Deprivation

u Chapter 4: Consistent poverty rate

u Chapter 5: EU comparison and indicators

Summary of main findings

u Average annual equivalised disposable income (i.e. household income adjusted for household

composition) in 2010 was 22,168, a drop of 5.0% on the 2009 figure of 23,326. See summary table

and figure 1 above.

u There was an increase in income inequality between 2009 and 2010 as shown by the quintile share

ratio. The ratio showed that the average income of those in the highest income quintile was 5.5 times

that of those in the lowest income quintile. The ratio was 4.3 one year earlier. See table 1b (Chapter 1).

u The at risk of poverty threshold decreased by more than 10% from 12,064 in 2009 to 10,831 in

2010, following a decrease of 3.1% in the threshold between 2008 and 2009.

u Although there was a decrease in the at risk of poverty threshold of more than 10%, the at risk of

poverty rate at state level rose from 14.1% in 2009 to 15.8% in 2010.

6

SILC 2010


7/98

u In 2010 the deprivation rate (those experiencing two of more types of enforced deprivation) was

almost 23% compared with just over 17% in 2009. This increase was largely attributable to an

increase in the deprivation rate, of those NOT at risk of poverty, from 13.7% in 2009 to 19.3% in 2010

while there was no significant change in the deprivation rate for those at risk of poverty. See figure 1.

u The consistent poverty rate was 6.2% in 2010, representing no statistically significant change on the

2009 figure.

Other points to note

Sample

The sampling frame for the SILC survey was drawn from the 2006 Census of Population.

Reference Period

Data collection for SILC 2010 began in January 2010 and finished in early January 2011. The income

reference period was twelve months prior to the date of interview meaning the reference period of this

report runs from January 2009 to January 2011.

Statistical significanceAll year to year comparisons quoted here are statistically significant unless otherwise stated. SILC is a

sample survey. As in all sample surveys, margins of statistical error exist. Thus, where there is a nominal

change in the value of an item from one year to the next, given the inherent margin of statistical error in

reality there may be no change in the value of that indicator. Changes in proportions presented in this

publication are only noted if they are statistically significant using a 95% confidence interval.

The at risk of poverty measure

The at risk of poverty rate is a relative measure of income poverty that often behaves counter-intuitively. An

individual is deemed to be at risk of poverty relative to other people in society.

Example:

Take an individual whose total income has fallen compared with last year and who was at risk of povertylast year. In the current year that individual may not be at risk of poverty if the median income of all persons

has fallen by more than the decrease in that individuals income.

Similarly another person whose total income has fallen and who was not at risk of poverty in 2009 may be at

risk of poverty this year. This is because the median income of all persons may have fallen by less than the

change in that individuals income.

7

SILC 2010


8/98


9/98

Table 1a Summary of main results

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Income


(per individual) 21,229 23,610 24,380 23,326 22,168


(60% of median income) 10,566 11,890 12,455 12,064 10, 831



Deprivation rate1

13.8 11.8 13.8 17.1 22.5Consistent poverty rate 6.5 5.1 4.2 5.5 6.21



Average annual equivalised disposable income in 2010 was 22,168 (or 424.83 weekly), a drop of 5.0%

on the 2009 figure of 23,326 (or 447.03 weekly). Equivalised total direct income fell by almost 9% while

social transfers increased by 4% between 2009 and 2010. The increase in social transfers was largely

attributable to increases in unemployment related payments. The definition of unemployment related

payments in SILC includes jobseekers benefits and jobseekers allowances but also includes redundancy

payments which accounted for part of the increase in the average weekly amounts between 2009 (23.44)

and 2010 (31.41). An increase in the number of people claiming unemployment benefit has also

contributed to the increase in the average values between 2009 and 2010. See tables 1.4, 1.5, 1.9 and

figure 1a.

9

SILC 2010

Chapter 1

Income


10/98

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Figure 1a Average annual equivalised disposableincome by year

Equivalised disposableincome

Equivalised disposableincome excluding all social transfers

At ris k of poverty threshold

Table 1b Indicators of income equality by year% of individuals

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Indicators of income equality1

Gini coefficient 31.8 32.4 32.4 31.7 30.7 29.3 33.9

Income distribution (Income quintile share ratio) 5.0 5.1 5.0 4.9 4.6 4.3 5.5

1See Background Notes


In 2010 median equivalised income was 18,051 a drop of more than 10% from 20,107 in 2009. As a

result the at risk of poverty threshold (60% of median equivalised income) decreased from 12,064 in 2009

to 10,831 in 2010. The threshold increased annually up to 2008 after which it began to fall. A second

consecutive fall in 2010 reflected an overall decline in income. See table 1.8 and figure 1a.

Income equality

There was an increase in income inequality in 2010 as shown by the income quintile share ratio and the

Gini coefficient. The quintile share ratio indicated that the average income of those in the highest income

quintile was 5.5 times that of those in the lowest income quintile. This ratio was 4.3 one year earlier thussignifying greater inequality in the income distribution in 2010. The Gini coefficient showed a similar pattern

increasing from 29.3% in 2009 to 33.9% in 2010. A Gini coefficient of 0% corresponds to perfect equality

while higher Gini coefficients indicate a more unequal distribution. The Gini coefficient and the quintile

share ratio indicate that the income distribution has become more unequal between 2009 and 2010 and

reverse the downward trend evident since 2005. See table 1b and figures 1b and 1c.

10

SILC 2010


11/98

-30.0

-25.0

-20.0

-15.0

-10.0

-5.0

0.0

5.0

10.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

%

Decile

Fig 1d Percentage change in equivalised disposablehousehold income by decile SILC 2010

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Rate%Figure 1b Gini coefficient by year

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Rate%Figure 1c Incomequintile shareratioby year

Decile analysis

While it is acknowledged that the decile income limits and composition of each decile change from year to

year, an examination of equivalised disposable income by decile between 2009 and 2010 was carried out.

Results showed an uneven distribution of the percentage change in equivalised disposable income across

the deciles. Those in the lowest income decile experienced a decrease in equivalised disposable income

of more than 26% while those in the highest income decile experienced an increase in income of more than

8%. See figure 1d.

Further analysis indicated that there was a change in the position of various groups in the income

distribution between 2009 and 2010. In fig 1e below it is clear that the proportion of those aged 65 or over in

deciles one, two and three decreased between 2009 and 2010 while the proportion of those aged 65 or

over in many of the other deciles increased over the same period.

11

SILC 2010


12/98

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

%

Decile

Figure 1fThe proportion of thoseliving in'Otherhouseholdswith children 'in each equivalisedincome decile by year

2009

2010

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

%

Decile

Figure 1e The proportion of those aged 65 or over ineach equivalised income decile by year

2009

2010

Among the different household compositions movement among deciles was also evident. In 2009 just over

half (50.2%) of those living in lone parent households were in the two lowest income deciles, this compares

with just under 36% in 2010. Those living in other households with children also experienced some

movement between 2009 and 2010. From fig 1f below it is clear that there was an increase in the

proportion of those in the three lowest income deciles and a decrease in the proportion of those in many of

the higher income deciles. See table 1.6.

Changes in the composition of equivalised disposable income between 2009 and 2010 provided further

evidence of this change in the income distribution. For example, average old age benefits (including

occupational pensions) as a proportion of total equivalised disposable income within each decile

decreased in the first two income deciles between 2009 and 2010 as did family and child related

allowances. There was an increase in the average old age benefit received by those in the four highest

income deciles between 2009 and 2010. See table 1.5.

12

SILC 2010


13/98

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

1 adultaged 65+,

no childrenunder 18

1 adultaged


14/98

Table 1.1 Gross household income by decile, activity composition of the household and

composition of net disposable household income, 2010

Decile 1 2 3 4 5

Weekly threshold ()


15/98

Table 1.1 (contd.) Gross household income by decile, activity composition of the household and

composition of net disposable household income, 2010

6 7 8 9 10 State Decile


16/9816

SILC 2010

Table 1.3 Annual average and median disposable household income by demographic characteristics

and year

2009 2010 2009 2010

State 45,959 43,333 38,255 34,222

Sex (head of household)

Male 50,570 47,719 42,360 38,432

Female 39,413 37,601 31,942 29,590

Age group (head of household)

18-64 50,772 47,839 43,471 38,685

65-74 33,898 29,815 25,291 24,547

65+ 29,711 28,110 23,397 23,670

75+ 24,792 26,209 19,598 22,093

Principal Economic Status (head of household)

At work 58,405 56,537 52,786 48,556

Unemployed 37,450 30,426 33,137 28,225

Student 31,104 27,186 25,184 22,316

Home duties 29,237 30,075 23,237 23,311

Retired 36,183 36,664 26,609 28,082

Not at work due to illness or disability 31,731 23,900 24,698 21,519

Highest education level attained (head of household)

Primary or below 30,224 26,028 24,536 20,639

Lower secondary 40,648 33,282 35,985 29,540

Higher secondary 47,912 39,635 41,379 33,406

Post leaving cert 49,982 35,299 44,063 30,707

Third level non degree 65,036 47,855 58,206 41,431

Third level degree or above 69,401 59,894 60,633 50,332

Household composition

1 adult aged 65+ 17,985 17,914 14,544 14,357

1 adult aged


17/98

Table 1.4 Annual average and median equivalised disposable income by demographic

characteristics and year All persons

equivalised disposable

2009 2010 2009 2010

State 23,326 22,168 20,107 18,051

Sex

Male 23,627 22,569 20,568 18,554

Female 23,029 21,773 19,699 17,739

Age group

0-17 21,244 20,001 18,268 16,252

18-64 24,678 23,579 21,423 19,449

65-74 22,321 20,529 17,264 16,688

65+ 20,681 19,723 15,595 15,976

75+ 18,392 18,613 16,330 15,524

Principal Economic Status (aged 16 years and over)

At work 28,732 28,144 25,921 23,856

Unemployed 18,239 16,143 15,820 13,972

Student 19,491 18,048 16,377 15,137Home duties 18,331 18,215 15,237 14,745

Retired 23,691 22,668 18,936 18,035

Not at work due to illness or disability 17,196 14,759 14,512 13,637

Highest education level attained (aged 16 years and over)

Primary or below 17,582 16,599 15,128 14,688

Lower secondary 19,731 18,554 17,801 16,452

Higher secondary 23,537 21,165 21,290 18,568

Post leaving cert 23,820 20,986 21,290 17,843

Third level non degree 26,682 21,273 25,474 19,440

Third level degree or above 34,265 32,873 30,792 27,637


1 adult aged 65+ 17,985 17,914 14,544 14,357

1 adult aged


18/98

Table 1.5 Average weekly equivalised income by net disposable equivalised income deciles

and composition of net equivalised disposable income, 2010

Decile 1 2 3 4 5

Weekly threshold ()


19/9819

SILC 2010

Table 1.5 (contd.) Average weekly equivalised income by net disposable equivalised income deciles

and composition of net equivalised disposable income, 2010



20/9820

SILC 2010

Table 1.6 Demographic characteristics of indiviuals by net disposable equivalised income

deciles, 2010

Decile 1 2 3 4 5

Weekly threshold ()


21/9821

SILC 2010

Table 1.6 (contd.) Demographic characteristics of indiviuals by net disposable equivalised income deciles,

2010



22/9822

SILC 2010

Table 1.7 Average income measures by year1

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

National income definition

Total gross household income 49,320 51,078 55,075 59,820 60,581 56,522 53,010

Total disposable household income 38,631 40,497 43,646 47,988 49,043 45,959 43,333

National income definition, national equivalence scaleEquivalised total disposable household income 18,773 19,768 21,229 23,610 24,380 23,326 22,168

Equivalised total disposable household income including old-age

and survivors' benefits but excluding all other social transfers 16,300 17,085 18,353 20,113 20,418 18,750 17,429

Equivalised total disposable household income excluding

all social transfers 14,513 15,132 16,338 17,897 17,982 16,067 14,534

1Gross and disposable household income is averaged over households, while equivalised income is averaged over individuals within the household.

Table 1.8 At risk of poverty thresholds by year

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

National income definition, national equivalence scale


60% of median income 9,680 10,057 10,566 11,890 12,455 12,064 10,831

40% of median income 6,453 6,705 7,044 7,927 8,303 8,043 7,220

50% of median income 8,067 8,381 8,805 9,908 10,379 10,053 9,026

70% of median income 11,293 11,733 12,327 13,871 14,531 14,075 12,636

Illustrative values (60% level)

1 adult, no children 9,680 10,057 10,566 11,890 12,455 12,064 10,831

2 adults, 2 children 22,457 23,332 24,513 27,584 28,895 27,988 25,127


23/9823

SILC 2010

Table 1.9 Composition of household income and equivalised income, by year

2009 2010 2009 2010

Average Weekly Income

Direct Income

Employee income 599.70 554.20 308.68 287.81

Employer's social insurance contributions 64.80 62.21 33.63 32.64

Cash benefits or losses from self-employment 105.25 80.12 55.99 43.40

Other direct income 26.40 23.37 12.58 11.39

Total direct income 796.16 719.90 410.88 375.25

Social Transfers

Unemployment related payments 45.78 59.86 23.44 31.41

Old-age related payments 63.41 69.17 26.78 29.97

Occupational pension 52.58 51.12 23.00 22.44

Family/children related allowances 67.91 61.94 39.74 36.33

Housing allowances 10.58 10.72 5.05 5.18

Other social transfers 46.78 43.21 22.50 20.86

Total social transfers 287.05 296.01 140.51 146.18

Gross Income 1,083.21 1,015.91 551.39 521.43

Tax and Social Contributions

Tax on income and social contributions 133.58 116.72 68.69 60.72

Employer's social insurance contributions 64.80 62.21 33.63 32.64

Regular inter-household cash transfers paid 4.05 6.53 2.04 3.23

Total Tax and Social Contributions 202.43 185.46 104.36 96.60

Net Disposable Income 880.78 830.46 447.03 424.83

Household income Equivalised income


24/98


25/98


2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Income


(per individual) 21,229 23,610 24,380 23,326 22,168


(60% of median income) 10,566 11,890 12, 455 12,064 10,831



Deprivation rate1



Background Information

The at risk of poverty rate identifies the proportion of individuals who are considered to be at risk of

experiencing poverty based on the level of their current income and taking into account their household

composition. It is calculated as the percentage of persons with an equivalised disposable income of less

than 60% of the national median income. The at risk of poverty rate can be calculated using alternative

thresholds, such as 40%, 50% etc; however, the at risk of poverty rate using the 60% threshold is the

internationally recognised measure.

The median equivalised disposable income in 2010 was 18,051 giving a 60% threshold of 10,831.

Therefore persons with an equivalised disposable income of less than 10,831 in 2010 were considered to

be at risk of poverty. The threshold had decreased by 10.2% since 2009 when the at risk of poverty

threshold had been 12,064. The at risk of poverty rate is then calculated as the number of people with an

equivalised disposable income below the threshold expressed as a proportion of the total population.

While the at risk of poverty rate is the main focus of this chapter, a number of additional indicators are also

presented as outlined below:

u The relative at risk of poverty gapThe relative at risk of poverty gap is the difference between the median equivalised income of

persons below the at risk of poverty threshold and the at risk of poverty threshold expressed as a

percentage of the at risk of poverty threshold (60% of median equivalised income). This indicator

can be used to estimate the depth of poverty.

25

SILC 2010

At risk of poverty rate

Chapter 2


26/98

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Rate %Figure 2a At riskof povertyrate by year

u The at risk of poverty rate anchored at a moment in time

The at risk of poverty rate anchored at a moment in time (e.g. 2007) is the percentage of the

population whose income in a given year (2010) is below the 2007 at risk of poverty threshold, with

the threshold only being updated to take account of price changes between 2007 and 2010. The

purpose of this indicator is to get an indication of changes in absolute poverty over time.


Although there was a decrease in the at risk of poverty threshold of more than 10%, the at risk of poverty

rate at state level rose from 14.1% in 2009 to 15.8% in 2010. This increase reflects the change in the

income distribution between 2009 and 2010 and the widening of the gap between those in the highest and

those in the lowest income quintiles. It also reverses the downward trend in the poverty rate evident since

2004. See table 2.1 and figure 2a.

It may seem counter intuitive that with the at risk of poverty threshold declining, the at risk of poverty rate

actually increased. Equivalised disposable income across all individuals, decreased by 5.0% between

2009 and 2010. The at risk of poverty threshold fell by 10.2% over the same period. However the

equivalised disposable income for those hovering just above the at risk of poverty threshold in 2009 fell by

more than the fall in the at risk of poverty threshold, so some individuals who were just above the at risk ofpoverty threshold in 2009 subsequently found themselves below the at risk of poverty threshold in 2010.

This fact is reflected in Figure 1d, chapter 1, where it can be seen that the percentage decline in equivalised

disposable income varied significantly across the income distribution.

Just to illustrate the point, if an individual who was just above the at risk of poverty threshold in 2009

experienced a fall of, for example, 14% in their equivalised disposable income between 2009 and 2010,

and the at risk of poverty threshold declined by 10.2% over the same period, this individual now finds

themselves below the threshold and as such, at risk of poverty in 2010.

Effect of social transfers

In 2010 if all social transfers were excluded from income the at risk of poverty rate would have been 51.0%,

indicating a steady increase from 39.8% in 2004. This increase over time demonstrates the increasing

dependence of individuals on social transfers to remain above the at risk of poverty threshold. See table

2.2 and figure 2b.

26

SILC 2010


27/98

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

0-17 18-64 65+ Total

% ofindividuals

Agegroup

Figure 2c At risk of povertyrateby agegroup andyear

2009 2010

51.0

39.839.7

32.7

15.8

19.4

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

2010200920082007200620052004

Rate %

Figure 2b At riskof povertyrateby income compositionand year

Excluding all social

transfers

IncludingONLY old age

and survivors' benefit

Includingall social

transfers

Analysis of the at risk of poverty rate by socio-demographic characteristics

The groups most at risk of poverty remained broadly consistent between 2009 and 2010.

u The at risk of poverty rate for those of working age (18-64) increased from 13.0% in 2009 to 15.3% in

2010. Almost one in five children were at risk of poverty in 2010 compared with almost one in ten ofthe elderly population. See table 2.1 and figure 2c.

27

SILC 2010


28/98

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

O wn er- occ upi ed Ren ted at t hemarketv alue

Rented at below the marketrate or rent free

%

Tenure status

Figure 2e At risk of poverty rate by tenure status andyear

2009

2010

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1 adultaged 65+

1 adultaged


29/98

Table 2b At risk of poverty gap, by year

2007 2008 2009 2010

At risk of poverty threshold 11,890 12,455 12,064 10,831

Median income of individuals at risk of poverty 9,821 10,060 10,104 8,781

% % % %

Relative at risk of poverty gap 17.4 19.2 16.2 18.9

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Threshold

at risk of poverty threshold: 9,680 10,057 10,566 11,890 12,455 12,064 10,831

anchored at a moment in time (2004) 9,680 9,920 10,224 10,701 11,209 11,230 10,758



anchored at a moment in t ime (2007) 10,755 11,022 11,360 11,890 12,454 12,477 11,953

Table 2c At risk of poverty thresholds by year

Relative at risk of poverty gap

The relative at risk of poverty gap is a percentage measure of how far below the at risk of poverty threshold

the median income of persons at risk of poverty is. The closer the median income of these persons is to the

threshold the smaller the percentage will be. See Tables 2b and 2.2.

In 2010 the median income of persons who were at risk of poverty was 8,781. This was 18.9% below the

at risk of poverty threshold of 10,831. As such, the relative at risk of poverty gap was 18.9% in 2010.

At risk of poverty anchored at a moment in time

The at risk of poverty rate anchored at a moment in time gives an indication of changes in income poverty,

in an absolute sense, over time. For example, if the base year was set as 2007, the at risk of poverty

threshold for 2007 was 11,890. This threshold would then be updated by the change in the consumer

price index each year to take account of inflation, so that the threshold would become 12,454 in 2008,

12,477 in 2009 and 11,953 in 2010. Table 2c outlines the thresholds, anchored at a moment in time

along with the actual at risk of poverty threshold for each year.

If the at risk of poverty threshold had been anchored at a moment in time, it would be seen that the threshold

value for 2010 would have been higher than the actual threshold value of 10,831 when anchored in any

year after 2004. See figure 2f.

29

SILC 2010


30/98

9,700

10,200

10,700

11,200

11,700

12,200

Anch ored2004

Anch ored2005

Anch ored2006

Anch ored2007

Threshold2010

Figure 2f 2010, at risk of poverty thresholds

anchored in time by year

This in turn would have meant that more individuals would have been below the poverty line and that the at

risk of poverty rate would have been higher than the reported rate in 2010 of 15.8%. This is evident in table

2d where, for example, the at risk of poverty rate would have been reported at 22.0% in 2010, with the

threshold anchored at 2007. See table 2d and figure 2g.

30

SILC 2010

Table 2d At risk of poverty anchored in time, by year

2007 2008 2009 2010

At risk of poverty rate 16.5 14.4 14.1 15.8

At risk of poverty anchored at 2004 11.5 10.4 11.0 15.6





31/98

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

2007 2008 2009 2010

Year

Figure 2g Actual poverty rates and poverty rates anchored in2006 and 2007 by year

At ris k of poverty anchored at 2006

At ris k of poverty anchored at 2007

At ris k of poverty rate

Analysis of the at risk of poverty rate by health related characteristics

A number of health related characteristics of individuals are collected as part of the SILC survey. Analysis

of these showed that there was a relationship between various health related characteristics and the

likelihood of a person being at risk of poverty. See table 2.6.

u People with a medical card had a much higher at risk of poverty rate in 2010 than those without a

medical card in 2010 (22.0% compared with 11.8%).

u A lower at risk of poverty rate was observed for people with private health insurance when compared

with those without private health insurance (7.8% compared with 22.2%).

Poverty and over-indebtedness

In 2010, over 22% of households were in arrears with at least one bill or loan. One third of households

(33%) that were at risk of poverty in 2010 were in arrears with at least one loan or bill. This represents no

significant change in the rate of 34% of households at risk of poverty in 2009, but maintains the higher rate

of arrears reported in 2009 compared with 2008. See table 2.7 and figure 2h.

31

SILC 2010


32/98

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

All h ous eholds Hous eholds at ris k o f poverty

Figure 2h One or more items in arrears, for allhouseholds and those at risk of poverty, by year

2008

2009

2010

u Regarding the ease/difficulty of making ends meet, among all households there was an increase in

making ends meet with great difficulty from 9.8% in 2009 to 13.7% in 2010.

u Combining the rates for the three categories, with great difficulty, with difficulty and with some

difficulty, the rate in 2010 adds to 81.8% for households who are at risk of poverty. The combined

figure for 2009 was 76.0%. The corresponding figure for all households was 65.3% in 2010.

32

SILC 2010


33/9833

SILC 2010

Table 2.1 At risk of poverty rate by demographic characteristics and year% of individuals

2009 2010

% %

State 14.1 15.8

Sex

Male 14.1 15.7

Female 14.1 15.9

Age group

0-17 18.6 19.5

18-64 13.0 15.3

65-74 8.9 9.3

65+ 9.6 9.6

75+ 10.6 10.0


At work 5.5 7.8

Unemployed 24.8 26.1

Student 25.9 24.0

Home duties 19.1 20.3Retired 9.6 9.0

Not at work due to illness or disability 21.7 20.9


Primary or below 18.6 17.8

Lower secondary 19.7 19.8

Higher secondary 12.8 15.7

Post leaving cert 9.1 13.2

Third level non degree 4.9 8.5

Third level degree or above 4.8 7.8


1 adult aged 65+ 9.5 9.4

1 adult aged


34/9834

SILC 2010

Table 2.2 Key national indicators of poverty and social exclusion by year% of individuals

2007 2008 2009 2010

National/NAPS Indicators using alternative national scale


Equivalised total disposable income:

Including all social transfers (60% median income threshold) 16.5 14.4 14.1 15.8

Including old-age and survivors' benefits but excluding all other

social transfers (60% threshold) 33.1 34.6 36.0 39.7

excluding all social transfers (60% median income threshold) 41.0 43.0 46.2 51.0




Relative at risk of poverty gap 17.4 19.2 16.2 18.9



At risk of poverty anchored at 20061

12.8 11.6 12.8 17.0


1 Figures for 2007 and 2008 anchored at 2006 have been revised since the 2009 SILC publication.


35/98

35

SILC 2010

Table2.3

Keynationalindicatorsofpov

ertyandsocialexclusionbyag

e,sexandyear

%

ofindividuals

0-1718-64

65-74

65+

75+

Total

0-1718-64

65-74

65+

75+

Total

Males

Atriskofp

overtyrate

Equivalisedtotaldisposableincome:

Including

allsocialtransfers(60%

medianincomethreshold)

18.9

12.9

8.8

8.9

9.1

14.1

18.1

15.5

11.1

1

0.3

9.1

15.7

Including

old-ageandsurvivors'benefitsbutexclud

ingall

otherso

cialtransfers(60%

threshold)

46.1

32.5

19.7

18.8

17.2

34.8

51.4

36.9

20.5

1

7.5

12.7

39.0

excludingallsocialtransfers(60%

medianincome

threshold)

47.3

36.5

83.1

86.3

92.2

44.4

52.9

40.9

86.2

8

9.3

94.3

49.3

Including



3.5

3.4

2.8

2.9

2.9

3.4

4.6

5.5

3.2

3.8

4.8

5.0

Including



7.7

7.0

5.5

6.1

7.1

7.1

9.0

8.8

6.9

6.8

6.7

8.7

Including



29.9

20.9

24.6

23.9

22.7

23.7

29.0

23.4

16.8

1

5.4

13.1

24.2

Females

Atriskofp

overtyrate


Including



18.3

13.1

9.0

10.2

11.5

14.1

20.9

15.2

7.7

9.1

10.7

15.9

Including


ingall

otherso

cialtransfers(60%

threshold)

46.3

36.1

22.0

24.0

26.3

37.3

50.7

40.2

17.7

2

0.2

23.2

40.5


medianincome

threshold)

47.4

40.2

87.9

89.4

91.1

48.1

51.8

44.7

92.1

9

3.0

93.9

52.6

Including



3.8

3.0

2.3

3.1

4.1

3.2

6.7

4.5

2.1

3.3

4.8

4.9

Including



9.2

5.8

5.7

5.9

6.2

6.7

10.3

7.9

5.7

6.6

7.8

8.4

Including



29.9

22.8

25.3

28.1

31.3

25.3

34.9

24.4

13.3

1

4.7

16.4

26.0

Totalperso

ns

Atriskofp

overtyrate


Including



18.6

13.0

8.9

9.6

10.6

14.1

19.5

15.3

9.3

9.6

10.0

15.8

Including


ingall

otherso

cialtransfers(60%

threshold)

46.2

34.3

20.8

21.7

22.8

36.0

51.1

38.6

19.1

1

9.0

18.9

39.7


medianincome

threshold)

47.3

38.3

85.5

88.0

91.5

46.2

52.4

42.8

89.3

9

1.3

94.1

51.0

Including



3.6

3.2

2.6

3.0

3.7

3.3

5.6

5.0

2.6

3.5

4.8

5.0

Including



8.4

6.4

5.6

6.0

6.6

6.9

9.6

8.3

6.3

6.7

7.4

8.5

Including



29.9

21.9

25.0

26.2

28.0

24.5

31.9

23.9

15.0

1

5.0

15.0

25.1

AgeGroup

2009

2010


36/9836

SILC 2010

Table 2.4 Profile of population at risk of poverty by demographic characteristics and year% of individuals

Proportion Proportion

of the of the

At risk of Proportion population At risk of Proportion population

poverty of the at risk of poverty of the at risk of

rate population of poverty rate population of poverty

State 14.1 100.0 100.0 15.8 100.0 100.0

Sex

Male 14.1 49.7 49.8 15.7 49.1 49.3

Female 14.1 50.3 50.2 15.9 51.0 50.7

Age group

0-17 18.6 26.4 34.9 19.5 26.8 33.4

18-64 13.0 62.5 57.6 15.3 55.6 59.6

65-74 8.9 6.5 4.1 9.3 9.9 3.9

65+ 9.6 11.1 7.6 9.6 17.7 7.0

75+ 10.6 4.6 3.5 10.0 7.7 3.1

Principal Economic Status1

At work 5.5 36.7 14.3 7.8 31.7 17.3

Unemployed 24.8 7.3 12.9 26.1 7.5 13.4

Student 25.9 7.9 14.6 24.0 6.0 12.1Home duties 19.1 13.3 18.0 20.3 15.0 16.7

Retired 9.6 6.9 4.7 9.0 10.7 4.2

Not at work due to illness or disability 21.7 4.1 6.4 20.9 4.3 5.3

Children under 16 years of age 17.1 22.8 27.6 19.0 24.1 28.4

Highest education level attained1

Primary or below 18.6 15.6 20.5 17.8 17.7 16.4

Lower secondary 19.7 15.5 21.7 19.8 14.3 19.2

Higher secondary 12.8 19.0 17.3 15.7 15.9 17.1

Post leaving cert 9.1 11.0 7.1 13.2 7.5 6.6

Third level non degree 4.9 8.1 2.8 8.5 7.6 4.2

Third level degree or above 4.8 7.7 2.6 7.8 11.2 5.9

Children under 16 years of age 17.1 22.8 27.6 19.0 24.3 28.4


1 adult aged 65+ 9.5 3.8 2.6 9.4 6.6 2.31 adult aged


37/98

Table2.5

Theatriskofpovertyrateand

theprofileofthepopulationat

riskofpovertybythedemographic

characteristicsoftheheadofh

ouseholdandyear

%

ofindividuals

Profile

Profile

ofthe

ofthe

Atriskof

Profile

population

Atriskof

Profile

population

poverty

ofthe

atriskof

poverty

of

the

atriskof

rate

population

poverty

rate

popula

tion

poverty

State

14.1

100.0

100.0

15.8

1

00.0

100.0

Sex(headofhousehold)

Male

12.3

62.1

54.1

14.1

59.7

53.1

Female

17.1

37.9

45.9

18.4

40.3

46.9

Agegroup

(headofhousehold)

18-64

14.8

86.1

90.6

16.8

85.7

91.0

65-74

9.6

8.0

5.5

10.7

7.9

5.4

65+

9.4

13.9

9.4

10.0

14.3

9.1

75+

9.4

5.8

3.9

9.1

6.4

3.7

PrincipalEconomicStatus(headofhousehold)

Atwork

5.7

56.1

22.8

8.7

52.9

29.1

Unemplo

yed

33.2

11.0

26.0

28.8

11.7

21.2

Student

41.8

1.8

5.4

25.0

1.9

3.0

Homeduties

25.9

14.5

26.7

27.3

15.7

27.1

Retired

9.2

10.2

6.6

8.4

11.2

6.0

Notatworkduetoillnessordisability

26.4

5.8

10.9

27.6

5.4

9.5

Highesteducationlevelattained(headofhouseho

ld)

Primaryorbelow

21.3

22.7

34.3

18.4

21.0

24.2

Lowerse

condary

19.6

19.6

27.2

21.6

18.9

26.1

Highersecondary

13.4

18.9

17.9

14.0

18.1

16.0

Postleavingcert

10.0

16.1

11.4

14.8

11.1

10.5

Thirdlev

elnondegree

6.8

10.9

5.2

8.1

12.0

6.4

Thirdlev

eldegreeorabove

4.0

11.4

3.2

11.6

16.3

11.8

2009

2010

37

SILC 2010


38/98

Table2.6

Atriskofpovertyratebykeyh

ealthrelatedcharacteristicsand

year

%

ofindividuals

2009

2010

Atriskofpoverty

rate

Allindividuals

Ind

ividualsatrisk

ofpoverty

Atriskof

poverty

rateA

llindividuals

Individualsatrisk

ofpoverty

%

%

%

%

%

%

Totalpopulation

14.1

100

100

15.8

100

100

Medical

card

Yes

25.3

38.1

68.4

22.0

39.4

54.9

No

7.2

61.9

31.6

11.8

60.6

45.1

Privatemedicalinsurance

Yes

5.5

44.9

17.5

7.8

44.2

21.7

No

21.1

55.1

82.5

22.2

55.8

78.3

Covered

byeithermedicalcard

orprivatemedicalinsurance

Yes

14.9

77.8

82.5

14.9

77.5

72.8

No

11.1

22.2

17.5

19.1

22.5

27.2

Population

aged16yearsandover

Chronic

illnessorhealthproblem

Yes

15.2

25.7

29.7

14.1

27.7

26.4

No

12.5

74.3

70.4

15.1

72.3

73.6

Limited

activity

Strongly

limited

17.8

5.5

7.5

13.7

5.1

4.7

Limited

15.2

13.9

16.0

16.7

12.5

14.0

Notlimited

12.5

80.6

76.6

14.6

82.5

81.3

HealthS

tatus

Verygoo

d

11.8

43.8

39.3

13.3

45.0

40.5

Good

13.4

39.6

40.1

16.6

38.3

42.8

Fair

16.7

13.8

17.5

14.6

13.5

13.3

Bad/very

bad

[14.8]

2.8

[3.1]

[]

3.1

3.3

Smoker

Yes

17.3

24.5

32.1

19.6

24.4

32.2

No

11.9

75.5

67.9

13.3

75.6

67.8

38

SILC 2010


39/98

Table 2.7 Over indebtedness indicators by households at risk of poverty and year% of households

State 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Number of items in arrears

0 75.8 66.0 77.3 67.1

1+ 24.2 34.0 22.7 33.0

Rent or Mortgage Arrears

Yes 5.0 7.2 7.2 12.8

No 95.0 92.8 92.8 87.2

Utility bill arrears

Yes 9.6 16.8 11.4 19.2

No 90.4 83.2 88.6 80.8

Arrears on other billsYes 17.0 22.6 14.9 19.1

No 83.1 77.5 85.1 80.9

Arrears on other loans

Yes 4.0 6.8 4.3 6.0

No 96.0 93.2 95.7 94.1

Has the household had to go into debt in the last

12 months to meet ordinary living expenses?

Yes 11.4 17.3 11.5 17.7

No 88.6 82.7 88.5 82.3

Has the household had the ability to pay an unexpected

expense of about 1,100 without borrowing?1

Yes 52.3 28.6 49.1 33.9

No 47.7 71.4 50.9 66.1

The degree of ease or difficulty the household has

to make ends meet

With great difficulty 9.8 21.4 13.7 24.6

With difficulty 14.1 18.7 17.0 23.2

With some difficulty 37.6 35.9 34.6 34.0

Fairly easily 25.9 19.2 24.6 14.2

Easily 9.1 4.2 6.7 2.7

Very easily 3.4 0.6 3.5 1.3

Housing cost burdenA heavy burden 25.2 39.7 31.1 40.6

Somewhat of a burden 53.5 45.1 50.6 46.5

No burden at all 21.3 15.3 18.2 12.9

1The actual figure used was 1,085 in 2009 and 1,145 in 2010. For year N it is one twelfth of the EU at risk of poverty threshold in

year N-2 in line with EU practice.

All

households

Households at

risk of poverty

2009 2010

All

households

Households at

risk of poverty

39

SILC 2010


40/98


41/98


2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Income


(per individual) 21,229 23,610 24,380 23,326 22,168


(60% of median income) 10, 566 11,890 12,455 12,064 10, 831



Deprivation rate1



Background information

The Survey on Income and Living Conditions collects information relating to enforced deprivation

experienced by individuals. Enforced deprivation refers to the inability to afford basic identified goods or

services. It is reported at the household and not the individual level, but it is assumed that each person in a

household where a form of deprivation was reported experienced that form of deprivation. The eleven

items listed below are examined in detail, among others, in this report. If an individual experienced two or

more of these eleven basic deprivation items due to inability to afford them, and was also identified as being

at risk of poverty, then the individual is defined as being in consistent poverty.

List of 11 deprivation indicators

1. Without heating at some stage in the last year due to lack of money

2. Unable to afford a morning, afternoon or evening out in the last fortnight

3. Unable to afford two pairs of strong shoes

4. Unable to afford a roast once a week

5. Unable to afford a meal with meat, chicken or fish every second day

6. Unable to afford new (not second-hand) clothes

7. Unable to afford a warm waterproof coat

41

SILC 2010

Chapter 3

Deprivation


42/98

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Rate %Figure 3a Deprivation rate by povertystatusand year

Deprivation rate

Deprivation rate for individuals at risk of poverty

Deprivation rate for individuals NOT at risk of poverty

8. Unable to afford to keep the home adequately warm

9. Unable to afford to replace any worn out furniture

10.Unable to afford to have family or friends for a drink or meal once a month

11.Unable to afford to buy presents for family or friends at least once a year

Analysis of overall deprivation rates

In 2010 the deprivation rate (those experiencing two or more types of enforced deprivation) was almost

23%, compared with just over 17% in 2009. The deprivation rate for those at risk of poverty was 39.4% in

2010 representing no statistically significant change from the 2009 figure. However, the deprivation rate for

those NOT at risk of poverty was 19.3%, a significant increase from the 13.7% in 2009. Since 2007 the

deprivation rate among this group has more than doubled (from 8.0%). See tables 3.1, 3.7 and 3.12 and

figure 3a.

Analysis of deprivation rates by income decile

Income deciles were constructed using weekly equivalised disposable income. Weekly disposable

household income was equivalised (see chapter 1) to take account of different household compositions

and the population was then divided by ten so that approximately 10% of the population was represented in

each decile for this analysis.

The deprivation rate tended to decrease as income rose, although deprivation was still being experienced

in the higher income deciles. Among those in the highest income decile, almost 5% experienced some

form of deprivation in 2010. See figure 3b.

42

SILC 2010


43/98

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

%

Decile

Figure 3c Deprivation rate (2+items) by year

2009

2010

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


44/98

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1 adultaged 65+

1 adultaged


45/98

Table 3b Most commonly reported deprivation items, by poverty level and year

Deprivation item 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010

% % % % % %

Unable to afford to replace any worn out

furniture16.3 20.3 36.6 30.0 12.9 18.5

Unable to afford a morning, afternoon or

evening out in the last fortnight14.9 19.3 29.6 32.0 12.5 17.0

Unable to afford to have family or friends for a

drink or meal once a month9.4 14.4 24.6 28.0 6.9 11.8

Without heating at some stage in the last year 7.3 10.6 17.0 17.9 5.7 9.2

All At risk of poverty NOT at risk of poverty

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Furniture Night out Family Heat

%

Deprivation

Figure 3e Main deprivation items for thoseNOT at risk of poverty, by year.

2007

2008

2009

2010

deprivation of any household type at 50.8% in 2010, an increase from 42.6% in 2009. All households with

children showed an increase in their deprivation rate between 2009 and 2010.

The next highest in this group were single people of working age, having a rate of deprivation of 28.3% in

2010.

Tenure

Individuals living in accommodation that was rented below the market rate or rent free had a deprivation

rate of 48.2% in 2010, the same as the previous year. Those renting at the market rate experienced

deprivation at a rate of 29.8% in 2010, an increase from 16.5% in 2009.

Analysis of types of deprivation and their prevalence

Four of the eleven deprivation items were experienced most frequently in 2009 and 2010. These were an

inability to:

u replace worn out furniture

u afford a morning/afternoon/evening out

u have family/friends over for a meal/drink

u afford heating at some stage in the last year

Similar patterns, although at different levels, could be observed for all individuals, individuals at risk of

poverty and individuals NOT at risk of poverty, across the eleven deprivation items. See table 3b and

tables 3.5, 3.10 and 3.15.

45

SILC 2010


46/98

Analysis of some further deprivation indicators

As part of the SILC survey other questions relating to deprivation, in addition to the eleven deprivation items

used for consistent poverty, were asked of households. The questions focussed on the financial position of

the household in the twelve months prior to the date of interview. These items are examined for the

population as a whole, for the population at risk of poverty and for those not at risk of poverty. See table 3.17.

u More than 49% of individuals in general stated that they were unable to afford to face an unexpected

expense of 1,145 in 2010. For individuals at risk of poverty, the rate reported was 66.2% in 2010

and the corresponding rate for those NOT at risk of poverty was 45.9% in 2010.

u Analysis of the housing cost burden revealed an increase in those reporting it as a heavy burden at

34.1% for all individuals in 2010, up from 28.9% in 2009. For individuals NOT at risk of poverty the

rate in 2010 was 32.5%, an increase from 26.5% in 2009.

46

SILC 2010


47/98

Table 3.2 Summary of deprivation indicators by net equivalised income

decile and year

Distribution across deciles 0 1 2 3+ 2+

Decile Weekly threshold () % % % % % %

2009 71.4 11.5 7.4 9.7 100 17.1

1


48/98

Table 3.3 Summary of deprivation indicators by demographic characteristics and year

Number of deprivation indicators experienced 0 1 2+ 0 1 2+

State 71.4 11.5 17.1 63.8 13.5 22.5

SexMale 71.6 11.6 16.8 65.1 13.3 21.6

Female 70.7 11.6 17.7 62.5 14.0 23.4

Age group

0-17 63.2 13.3 23.5 53.9 15.9 30.2

18-64 72.7 11.3 16.0 65.5 13.0 21.5

65-74 81.9 9.1 9.0 79.5 11.6 9.0

65+ 81.5 9.0 9.5 78.2 12.2 9.6

75+ 80.8 8.9 10.2 76.3 13.2 10.5


At work 83.3 8.9 7.9 76.6 10.8 12.5

Unemployed 49.3 16.4 34.3 42.8 19.1 38.0

Student 67.2 13.4 19.4 60.5 15.1 24.4

Home duties 66.0 13.6 20.3 59.6 15.1 25.3

Retired 82.7 9.3 8.0 81.0 11.7 7.2Not at work due to illness or disability 52.8 11.5 35.7 42.0 15.2 42.8


Primary or below 61.2 14.9 24.0 55.0 18.9 26.0

Lower secondary 66.7 12.4 20.9 60.7 14.4 24.9






1 adult aged 65+ 75.8 10.3 13.9 71.3 13.5 15.2

1 adult aged


49/98

Table 3.4 Summary of deprivation indicators by head of household characteristics and year

Number of deprivation indicators experienced 0 1 2+ 0 1 2+

State 71.4 11.5 17.1 63.8 13.7 22.5

Sex (head of household)Male 73.6 11.1 16.8 68.6 11.7 19.7

Female 67.2 12.3 17.7 56.7 16.7 26.7

Age group (head of household)

18-64 69.4 12.0 16.0 61.7 13.8 24.6

65-74 82.8 8.4 9.0 76.0 13.3 10.7

65+ 82.2 8.7 9.5 76.6 13.2 10.2

75+ 81.3 9.2 10.2 77.4 13.1 9.5

Principal Economic Status (head of household)

At work 81.2 9.4 7.9 74.3 11.2 14.6

Unemployed 40.7 19.4 34.3 33.7 20.8 45.6

Student 43.0 23.0 19.4 59.3 8.2 32.6

Home duties 59.8 13.3 20.3 50.9 16.5 32.6Retired 82.6 10.1 8.0 80.7 12.5 6.8

Not at work due to illness or disability 50.1 13.0 35.7 38.5 11.9 49.7

Highest Education level attained (head of household)

Primary or below 56.3 16.3 24.0 50.2 20.7 29.1

Lower secondary 63.5 12.6 20.9 58.3 12.1 29.6





2009 2010

% of individuals

49

SILC 2010


50/98

Table3.5

Percentageofthepopulationreportingeachtypeofdeprivation,

byyear

%

ofindividuals

Deprivation

Indicators

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Without

heatingatsomestageinthelastyear

6

.5

5.7

6.0

6.3

7.3

10.6

Unablet

oaffordamorning,afternoonorevening

outinth

elastfortnight

10

.3

8.8

8.4

11.1

14.9

19.3

Unablet

oaffordtwopairsofstrongshoes

3

.3

3.1

3.0

2.7

2.1

2.9

Unablet

oaffordaroastonceaweek

4

.2

4.4

3.9

3.8

3.4

5.5

Unablet

oaffordamealwithmeat,chickenorfish

everysecondday

2

.9

2.4

2.2

3.0

2.1

3.0

Unablet

oaffordnew(notsecond-hand)clothes

6

.8

5.5

5.2

5.6

4.5

7.6

Unablet

oaffordawarmwaterproofcoat

2

.8

2.1

2.3

2.6

1.1

2.0

Unablet

oaffordtokeepthehomeadequatelywarm

4

.0

3.9

3.5

3.7

4.1

6.8

Unablet

oaffordtoreplaceanywornoutfurniture

13

.8

13.7

13.1

13.3

16.3

20.3

Unablet

oaffordtohavefamilyorfriendsforadrin

k

ormeal

onceamonth

11

.6

10.7

9.6

9.1

9.4

14.4

Unablet

oaffordtobuypresentsforfamilyorfriends

atleast

onceayear

4

.6

3.3

2.9

2.3

3.4

5.1

Experien

ceddeprivation(1+items)

24

.7

25.2

24.4

24.9

28.6

36.2

Experien

ceddeprivation(2+items)

14

.9

13.8

11.8

13.8

17.1

22.5

50

SILC 2010


51/98

Table3.6

Percentageofthepopulationreportingdeprivationbyyearan

dhouseholdcomposition

%

ofindividuals

Deprivation

Indicators

1adult

1adu

lt

2adults,

2adults,

3or

1adult,

2adults,

Other

Total

aged65+

aged

Documents

SILC report 2010 final